Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, nullify any law that is unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Constitution. No state, person, politician, officer of the law,
has to obey any law from the United States government that is unconstitutional or outside of the scope of the Constitution, period.

Yeah but when you've got the SCOTUS continually expanding that scope, what's a state to do? If we would have told the founding fathers that
wiretapping was legal, or the Patriot Act, or cameras in cities, mini UAV's flying around with cameras, and police stations with battle tanks, you
think they would have put that in the constitution as law? Obamacare? Bah.

Originally posted by Taupin DescipleThis Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

(Original emphasis kept)

According to this section of the U.S. constitution, the rights of individual states dictate how the U.S. constitution is to be written: with
the rights of the states coming first.

It’s the second clause of Article VI, and it’s colloquially referred to as the Supremacy Clause.
And, contrary to what many would rather believe, and what you are asserting here, it does not say laws of the states supersede federal law.
Quite the opposite.

The problem is, is that it is written in such a way as to easily confuse the average reader. Thankfully Pearce is not your average reader.I'm
not taking this out of context either. On the contrary, I'm putting it INTO context.

I will presume that you honestly believe it to be the
correct interpretation, and this is not some attempt to distort something that has been settled, for centuries, in constitutional jurisprudence.

It seems clear to me, particularly from the emphasis you used, that you are interpreting the last statement of the clause — “anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” — to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Notwithstanding is a term frequently used in legal contexts and it means “in spite of.” So the Supremacy Clause, under more common language, could
be read as—
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States (...) shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, in spite of anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.”

The last statement of the Supremacy Clause then, actually, and explicitly, says the United States Constitution and federal law supersede state law,
not the contrary.

These particular questions have been settled since at least the Marshall Supreme Court in the early 1800s, and reaffirmed multiple times since then,
but I understand how some people, for political gain, or for ideological reasons, would rather pretend the Constitution, in some instances, doesn’t
say what it clearly does.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, nullify any law that is unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Constitution. No state, person, politician, officer of the law,
has to obey any law from the United States government that is unconstitutional or outside of the scope of the Constitution, period.

As some
other members have pointed out, it is the United States Supreme Court that ultimately determines the constitutionality of laws, not an individual
state’s legislature.

It’s a well established principle that legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional. If a particular state believes an act of Congress
to be unconstitutional then it can contest and challenge it in court.

There is simply no basis in the Constitution for an individual state to unilaterally determine the constitutionality of a federal law.

allows for state and federal wars to commence start building tanks and artiliary for the state, militia as well
make antiair craft guns missle lanchers, Drop a couple shells on the whitehouse lawn they will be wanting to listen than.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws

After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the
state to nullify federal laws.

As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws," which would
"recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope
of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution."

(visit the link for the full news
article)

Wow this is great news, now if all the other 49 states will follow along and tell the Feds to go "F" themselves and go back to protecting borders
and regulating commerce like they were supposed to do instead of overstepping the boundries within the law.

Originally posted by muse7
Well, I guess we should stop giving Arizona Federal money. They want to nullify federal laws and pass their own? Fine let them, In fact I wouldn't
care if the United States kicked out AZ out of the Union. They then can create and live happily in the little police state that they so badly want.

edit on 3/5/2011 by muse7 because:

Bad ass.

Guess Arizona should not send money either, considering the Federal government is not protecting the border.

Arizona gets about $1.19 for every dollar taxpayers spend, but on receive the smallest amount of money in earmarks. So we will call it about equal,
and Arizonians do not miss out on anything, and get their border secured.

Never mind the fact that the federal government owns about 50% of Arizona land . . . so that will be taken back as well.

Uggh.. not this crap again. The theory of nullification of federal law by the states was brought up since the inception of the Constitution. To date,
its never been succesful, because the Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the land.

I would rather see lawsuits forcing the government to do their damn jobs before we go down this road. I dont think we have used redress of greivances
to its fullest extent.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.